The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The term “worker” under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Labor Standards Act means a person who provides labor to a business or workplace for the purpose of wages regardless of the type of occupation, and whether it falls under it shall be determined according to whether an employer has provided labor in a subordinate relationship with the employer for the purpose

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) In a case where an executive officer of a company is deemed to have been in a position to handle the delegated affairs, and thus, constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, inasmuch as an executive officer of the company is not in a position to provide a certain work under the employer’s direction and supervision to the extent that the overall nature of the business he/she is in charge of, or the substance of the business performance is not limited to providing a certain work.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da28813, Sept. 26, 2013). In particular, where an executive officer of a large-scale company has been specially appointed for the management of a business belonging to a specialized field of technology and has participated in the decision-making for the management of the company as well as the registration director and has been treated differently with general employees, the detailed details of appointment, the duties in charge, and treatment.